brickclubfandomcom-20200213-history
1.5.13-Columbina
Brick!Club 1.5.13 - 1.7.2 HI I’M BACK, I THINK, OR AT LEAST BACK ENOUGH TO FAKE IT UNTIL I MAKE IT which is the only way I make anything but anyway. These really do start to get a bit short and pointless towards the end, I just wanted to get them all done before falling even further behind. 1.5.13 The Solution of Some Questions connected with the Municipal Police Once again, things that don’t change. There is still nothing more exciting and hilarious to the general populace than watching some crazy person being taken away by the police. I know a lot of people are like “lol overreaction much” to Javert thinking Fantine had made an attempt on the life of a citizen but I wonder what might have happened if Javert hadn’t intervened. I imagine M. Bamatabatois would eventually manage to push her off and hightail it out of there, but if he didn’t… it’s perhaps unlikely, but not inconceivable that Fantine might not regain control of herself in time. Or we could have slipped into the DC universe and Fantine might have made him trip on a rock and die. Fantine’s speech Imma just SKIP RIGHT ON OVER SO I DON’T DISAPPEAR FOR ANOTHER WEEK. Once again, Javert has a point omg I am sorry this is becoming an adventure in Columbina Defends Javert, but, hey, he does hear her out, he doesn’t interrupt her speech and, unlike in the musical, he doesn’t dismiss it out of hand. If she had had a valid legal defence, if it had been self-defence (assuming that was a defence then, since provocation obviously wasn’t) or something, I think he would have followed it up. Also, “The Eternal Father in person could do nothing more.“ In Javert’s mind, even God is bound by the French criminal code. He takes the rule of law, which is generally considered to be a Good Thing, to the extreme, which is just Javert all over, but also makes me wonder if this isn’t a hole that revolutionary sentiment could get through - if he expects the Eternal Father to be subject to the rule of law, surely the king must be too? Which means he is capable of committing crimes? That if there was something in the current criminal code that the king could be proven guilty of, would Javert be right there on the barricade? I know we’re told that he has a “blind and profound faith” in everyone who works for the government - but in the same chapter he’s getting all suspicious of the mayor, so, you know, I don’t know if that faith is quite as blind as we’re told. “A sort of aggrevied awkwardness” - I know Hugo’s talking about Javert, but this sounds like such an accurate description of all of Valjean’s attempts at social interaction. (Except when he’s being the world’s greatest mediator, I assume.) VALJEAN YOU BROKE JAVERT. What’s really interesting here is first of all, how he’s clearly been balancing his blind faith in the mayor because he’s a mayor and his gut instinct that tells him the mayor isn’t a mayor, and it’s when these two sides collide that his brain breaks. Also he assumes that everyone else is operating on something at least close to the same belief system as him, which obviously contributes to his blind faith. Was corruption not much of an issue, or was Javert just lucky, or did he just keep his blinkers on? Javert bb I feel you, apparently seven years of law school has had some effect on me after all, plus a general tendency towards rule-following and the importance of rules and certain Fantine issues reminding me of certain Columbina issues leading me to believe that suffering and dying alone probs makes sense ha ha anyway, going back to rules and rule of law, I really do feel for Javert on this, probably much more than I am meant to. That said though bless you for your little digression into how fancy M. Bamatabatois’s house is. 1.6.1 The Beginning of Repose SORRY YOU TWO, I HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY ABOUT JAVERT TO SPEND MUCH TIME ON YOU. Fantine is a martyr, Valjean glows, Valjean is an idiot who should really just go and grab Cosette I mean come on, illness has made Fantine into a precious little child, which is very charming and pretty realistic in my experience, but a bit uninteresting. Also, hey, who saw that post that was doing the rounds with that tweet that was like “Good women starve with their child in their arms, bad women turn tricks for baby food” I was like WOW DID YOU JUST STEP OUT OF THIS BOOK? 1.6.2 How Jean may become Champ “His eyes fixed on the docket which he was turning over and annotating, and which contained the trials of the commission on highways for the infraction of police regulations.” Wow that sounds exciting. All glamour is the life of the mayor. VALJEAN YOU PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE TWERP. JAVERT SALUTING THE MAYOR’S BACK. I LOVE YOU BOTH SO MUCH. Wait I take back what I said in the last chapter, I would like to say a lot about Javert, but “I messed up, I deserve to have my life ruined, it’s only fair and right” is hitting a bit too close to home and also like Javert, I often prefer punishment to forgiveness - or rather, I prefer accepting punishment to apologising. Rereading this book and thinking hard about it and my teenage self’s reaction to it, I’m realising how much I really admired Javert? Along with being super attracted to. Either way, I can see this book is going to continue to be a bumpy road of self-reflection. I just agree with him so much, he is things that I have tried and failed to be and well I guess he ultimately fails too so I guess those things just aren’t things you can actually be no matter how hard you try. I JUST. I CANNOT WORDS WITH THIS CHAPTER I LOVE IT SO MUCH, I LOVE JAVERT SO MUCH. I’ve been trying to write more about it, but I just keep copy-pasting quotes and adding lovehearts and keyboard smashes so I’m going to stop trying or I’ll just get further behind. 1.7.1 Sister Simplice Everyone else has covered the problematicness of all sorts of things in this chapter, I will only add that I would much rather hang out with Sister Perpetue than Simplice. 1.7.2 The The Perspicacity of Master Scaufflaire I’m annoyed that I managed to make it back just after all the awesome Javert bits but just in time for all the excitement of Valjean Rents A Horse. Poor Master Scaufflaire. The mayor shows up being all crazy suspicious - also, after Valjean reveals himself and the town turns on him, how long do you think Mr S got to dine out on this story? I kind of don’t blame him for overstating the price of his horse when the mayor was being that shady. Pretty lucky for Valjean that his position prevents folk from outright questioning him, even when he is being awkward and suspicious. Commentary Acesius oh no h e l p in javert’s mind, even god is bound by the criminal code I just vimes I mean there’s even that one bit where he arrests vetinari because he believes that the law should apply to everyone equally anddddsjgksd if you could make javert see that authority can be in the wrong too he’d be right up there on that barricade yes I mean he respected gavroche for doing just what he would have done and and he’s just as viciously righteous as enjolras except he’s on the other side of the law s t o p Kingedmundsroyalmurder (reply to Acesius) God though, the Javert/Enjolras parallels. They are so there, with the conviction and the utter belief in their respective causes and their unwillingness (inability?) to bend or to compromise. And they will do the right thing according to their respective ideals no matter how unpleasant, whether that’s Enjolras killing a spy or Javert turning himself in. Only Enjolras is the golden boy with friends and money and respect and Javert exists outside of society and is alone. So you add in Valjean as the third leg of that trio, the one whose beliefs flicker sometimes in a way that the other two’s don’t and who is both outside of society and elevated by it, who bends the law but works within the system. Apparently today is the day for drowning in emotions about fictional French people and their relationships to each other… Pilferingapples (reply to Kingedmundsroyalmurder's reply) I thought I was laying down the Enjolras Disussion and Defense Squad banner for a while but OH NO suddenly he’s easier to talk about than BOSSUET so The Thing About Enjolras in this set of parallels is that while his belief doesn’t flicker (ever,seriously, that’s an essential part of his character) part of that unflickering belief is that CONFLICTING IDEAS ARE IMPORTANT THIS IS HOW FUTURE HAPPENS YAY. He’s got friends, like you say, and they are *specifically* friends who argue with or in personality juxtapose him in some way. Combeferre is debating PRETTY IMPORTANT ISSUES with him AT THE BARRICADE, and Feuilly, who he fanboys over with practically his dying breath, is coming at life from the complete opposite end of things. And in this context (The Context Where They’re All Representing Justice/The Law as opposed to The Context Where They’re Representing Actual People or The Context Where Javert is Law and Enjolras is Rebellion and Valjean is Redemption or Something) , that’s relevant because Enjolras is representing, specifically, Divine Justice— he’s Themis, remember— while Javert is Legal Justice, and Divine Justice has to be able to take account of multiple outcomes and views and information and persons, while the Rule of Law type law has to be *consistent* above all. (I saw some REALLY good meta on this from my Smarter People a while back, but can’t recall just who— Hernaniste, maybe? ) SO YES PARALLELS but it’s not just two rigid characters and one more human guy, because WHOA ENJOLRAS. (also there is stuff I could write here about how he’s also representing the ideal of the Republic and the everyone-to-their-nature equality he talks about and that means making room for multiple truths BUT THAT IS ANOTHER POST I AM SURE I WILL GET TO MAKE SOMETIME) (also I question how much Enjolras can be said to be ‘inside society’ when he’s specifically setting out to uproot that society and..uh…plant it in a sunnier location? Maybe it could be said that he’s outside by choice which Valjean and Javert don’t get to have? OH NO YOU MADE ME TALK ABOUT ENJOLRAS I BLAME YOU ALL ENTIRELY, I was doing so WELL.) Sarah1281 It’s just…does Javert think that every brawl he interrupts is attempted murder? Making an attempt on a life seems like it would have to, by definition, be deliberate because it was an attempt. Fantine clearly wasn’t trying to kill him because she was just enraged and lost control so there’s no element of deliberateness here. And she’s an unarmed dying woman versus a perfectly healthy man. She took him by surprise but how is she really going to succeed in killing him? If Javert had not interrupted Bamatabois would have pushed her off and then punished her. I think it was a courtesy that he listened to her story but it was never going to change anything. Javert thought he knew what happened because she was a prostitute and the victim was a gentleman (and what he thought he was was, inexplicably, attempted murder) and so decided to just issue her punishment without taking two minutes to ask somebody who had been there what had happened. What would have been the harm in confirming his story so he’s sure? If what had happened was Bamatabois had a knife and was trying to murder her and so she was defending herself then I don’t think it would have mattered because Javert would not have believed her because it is her word against the absent elector’s. I’m sure if the situation were reversed and Fantine had dropped snow down Bamatabois’ back she still would have been arrested. It’s not perhaps entirely his fault here since he’s just following the law and the law says that mitigating circumstances do not matter and prostitutes have no rights and should not be believed over gentlemen even when said gentelmen are sketchy as hell and run from the cops. Even after Madeleine shows up with all sorts of witnesses saying it’s not Fantine’s fault and legal rights to do whatever he wants with Fantine Javert still does not want her to be released because she attacked a man and the circumstances do not matter. I cannot see how anything she could have said would have ever changed his mind. Columbina (reply to Sarah1281) I HAVE LEGITIMATE STUDY OF MODERN AUSTRALIAN LAW THAT NEEDS DOING BUT INSTEAD I’M READING THE PENAL CODE OF 1810 WHOOPS. Because I was coming at this from a common law perspective, which is obviously all kinds of wrong for France. And also even by my standards I paid very little attention in Criminal Law because it’s not something I ever want to do with my life, and also because those cases were all manner of distressing. Anyway, I was like, well, attempted murder, you need to have the intention to kill and to have taken more than merely preparatory steps. I can see why Javert might think that Fantine was guilty of that - Fantine might very well have been guilty of that, we can’t say for sure what her intention was. Who knows, she may very well have meant to kill him in her rage. Murder doesn’t have to be premeditated. In fact, under the code, if it was, it was no longer murder but assassination (art. 296-297). All that matters is her intention at the time of the act, that she had wilfully and not accidentally attacked him. Her likelihood of actual success is similarly irrelevant at law. Buuuuut, it turns out that attempted murder was not a thing in France then! So it actually doesn’t matter how much damage she intended to do, Javert can only get her on what she did do, which in this case would fall under Book the Third, Chapter I, Section I, Subsection II - Wilful Wounds and Blows not amounting to Murder. 311. When the wounds or blows shall not have occasioned any sickness, or inability to work, of the kind mentioned in article 309, the offender shall be punished with an imprisonment of from one month to two years, and a fine of from 16 to 200 francs. Wait a minute, imprisonment AND a fine? But Javert didn’t fine Fantine! WELL… You know how I thought provocation probably wasn’t a thing? Turns out it was: 321. Murder, as well as wounds and blows, are excusable, if they have been provoked by blows, or grievous personal violence. However, just because your crime was excusable, you’re not off the hook yet: 326. When the fact of excuse shall be proved: If it be the case of a crime punishable with death, perpetual hard labour, or transportation, the penalty shall be reduced to an imprisonment, of from one year to five years; If it be the case of any other crime, the penalty shall be reduced to an imprisonment of from six months to two years; In these two first cases, the criminal may be placed, by the sentence or judgment, under the superintendence of the high police, for not less than five years, nor more than ten years; Fantine obviously falls in the second category, and Javert has (arguably, since Hugo doesn’t actually take us through this reasoning) applied that. If he hadn’t believed the crime was excusable, he could have given her a shorter jail sentence and imposed a fine, which would be generally be harsher because at least in jail she’s still earning her seven sous a day. Instead he gives her the minimum he can in the circumstances. If the Eternal Father had to follow the Penal Code of 1810, He could, in fact, actually not do more. Valjean presumably excuses her under article 328: 328. There is neither crime nor delict, when the homicide, wounds, and blows, were commanded by the actual necessity of lawful self-defence, or defence of another person. But I think it’s pretty tenuous to argue that Fantine’s actions were commanded by the actual necessity of lawful self-defence. It seems much more likely that they were merely provoked by grievous personal violence. If B. had pulled a knife on her, there’d be a much stronger argument for lawful self-defence. So, it doesn’t really matter what Javert thought Fantine’s intention was, because that wouldn’t change her crime, unless we go down to Involuntary Homicide, Wounds and Blows, which covers damage inflicted “by unskilfulness, imprudence, heedlessness, negligence, or non-observance of rules,” which is very clearly not the case here. I think given the sentence he imposes and the way it perfectly aligns with the minimum sentence for excusable wounds and blows, Javert did listen to her, and did hold that there were mitigating circumstances. (((Disclaimer time: I don’t actually know what I’m talking about, I’ve only looked at the Penal Code of 1810, not at the surrounding case law (not that that should matter in a civil law jurisdiction) or checked for any amendments that might have been in place. I know I’ve seen meta about the rights or lack thereof of prostitutes, I haven’t checked for any of that, I’m assuming Fantine is subject to the same rights and protections under the criminal law as any citizen. If I’ve gotten anything wrong, please correct me but don’t judge me for my ignorance.))) PS: Fun fact. You know what else would have been excusable: 325. The crime of castration, if it has been immediately provoked by a violent outrage to chastity, shall be considered as an excusable murder or wound. I WISH YOU HAD, FANTINE, although I suspect women of the town would have a hard time proving that attacks on them were outrages to chastity.